Now Trump is tariffing American companies, too
That's the opposite of Trump's tariff push, which is supposed to encourage companies to make things in the US.
But it's consistent with Trump 2.0's approach to business: He is increasingly inserting the federal government into private companies.
Imagine living in a country where private companies need the government's permission to do business.
Depending on your age, you might think I'm describing Soviet-era Russia — or Russia in the Putin era. You'd certainly think about modern-day China, where the government is an official partner in many private companies, and has unofficial but meaningful influence over most of them.
And in 2025, you might also think that's beginning to describe America in the second Trump administration.
Last week, for instance, Donald Trump called on the CEO of Intel to resign because of his past business connections to China. In June, Trump approved Nippon Steel's plan to buy US Steel — but only after the US government was granted a "golden share" in the company that gives Washington the ability to approve or veto some actions, like closing plants. In January, Trump floated the idea of having the US government own a portion of TikTok's US operations.
And now Trump is requiring Nvidia and AMD to hand over 15% of revenue from high-end chip sales to China, as first reported by the Financial Times. (Nvidia has released a statement noting it "follow[s] rules the US government sets for our participation in worldwide markets," without addressing reports about the deal directly; AMD and the White House have yet to comment.)
You can make arguments for or against any one of these transactions — US chip sales to China have been a particularly divisive issue, even within the Trump administration. But taken together, there's little question that in Trump 2.0, we should expect the federal government to insert itself into private business.
Call it "state capitalism, a hybrid between socialism and capitalism in which the state guides the decisions of nominally private enterprises," Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip wrote Monday morning. It's an exceptionally timely piece he appears to have written before the Nvidia/AMD story broke, because it doesn't contain any reference to it.
(You can make the list of Trump's interventions even longer if you'd like: He personally required former Paramount owner Shari Redstone to pay him $16 million to settle a seemingly specious lawsuit, for instance. And Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission, has required Paramount's new owners to promise to "root out the bias that has undermined trust in the national news media." You could also include the concessions Trump is demanding from some of the nation's most prestigious universities and law firms.)
The chip story is particularly hard to get your head around, since it inverts the premise of the tariff plans Trump has been pushing this year. Instead of taxing goods made overseas and imported into the US, the US is now taxing goods made by American companies, in America — the thing he supposedly wants to see much more of.
It's not surprising to see Donald Trump say one thing and do another. And half a year into his second presidency, it's no longer surprising to see the Republican-controlled Congress let him do just about anything he wants: This is the same Congress that passed a law last year requiring TikTok's US operations to find a US buyer or shut down — and hasn't said a word about the fact that Trump has decided to ignore that law, repeatedly.
And again, you might not care about the moves the Trump administration has made to steer companies to date. You might even like them. But the odds are increasing that he's going to end up involving the federal government in an industry or company you do care about. Maybe one you work in. How are you going to feel about it then?
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Newsom is ready to redraw California's maps. Here's an overview of where we stand
In less than three months, California voters may be tasked with determining whether the state moves forward with a mid-decade redistricting, a move proponents say is combating Texas Republican lawmakers' efforts to secure more party seats in the 2026 midterms as the nation teeters on a gerrymander war. Gov. Gavin Newsom reiterated his plans in a letter to President Donald Trump on Monday, Aug. 11, in which he requested that the president call on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the leaders of other red states to cease their efforts. 'If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,' Newsom said. 'But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same.' The letter comes the same week state Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said he anticipated the proposed maps would be released after lawmakers were pressed about when the public would see them. 'Once these maps are released, voters will have the opportunity to digest these maps, review them for weeks and months leading to this election,' Rivas said during a press conference on Aug. 8. For weeks, Newsom and California Democratic lawmakers have been floating plans for a mid-decade redistricting. It's in response to Trump and White House officials who've urged Texas Republican leaders to redraw voting maps to gain five new Republican-friendly seats to the U.S. House of Representatives, USA TODAY reported. In California, congressional district maps are drawn by the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission — not legislators — which was created when voters passed the Voters First Act in 2008. Here's the latest on redistricting efforts in California, based on Newsom and other lawmakers' recent public comments, and what to know moving forward. What is Newsom proposing? Here's what you should know Newsom and California lawmakers plan to call for a special election in the first week of November, in which voters will determine whether California will move forward with redistricting — a move that would pick up five Democratic seats. Lawmakers have until Aug. 22 to get this measure on the ballot, Newsom said during a press conference on Aug. 8. The assembly and state senate have adjourned until Aug. 18. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat whose district includes San Benito County and parts of other central coast counties, said that leaders found that they could create a map for California that 'eliminated five Republican districts' yet 'was true to the Voting Rights Act' following Texas's efforts during the Aug. 8 press conference. The California governor has previously described the proposal being advanced with the legislature as having a 'trigger.' If Texas moves forward with its mid-decade redistricting, then California would act. Recently, many Democratic Texas representatives have left the state to stall redistricting efforts. 'We tried to play by a higher set of standards and rules with our independent redistricting, and we believe in that, and we are not talking about eliminating that commission,' Newsom said on Aug. 8. 'We are talking about emergency measures to respond to what's happening in Texas and we will nullify what happens in Texas. We will pick up five seats with the consent of the people.' Newsom has described the mid-decade redistricting as occurring 'just for congressional maps in '26, '28 and '30.' California has 52 congressional districts, nine of which are currently represented by Republican congressmen: Doug LaMalfa, 1st Congressional District of California Kevin Kiley, 3rd Congressional District of California Tom McClintock, 5th Congressional District of California Vince Fong, 20th Congressional District of California David Valadao, 22nd Congressional District of California Jay Obernolte, 23rd Congressional District of California Young Kim, 40th Congressional District of California Ken Calvert, 41st Congressional District of California Darrell Issa, 48th Congressional District of California These lawmakers said in a joint statement in late July that they'd 'fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections.' 'The Commission received feedback from tens of thousands of Californians as to their communities of interest, which shaped the current set of congressional districts,' they said. 'Districts that represent the local communities that they live in, rather than the whims of one political party. A partisan political gerrymander is NOT what the voters of California want, as they clearly stated when they passed the VOTERS FIRST Act and participated in the Citizens Redistricting Commission process.' Who does redistricting in California? The California Citizens Redistricting Commission, comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four people not affiliated with either party, redraws the boundaries of the state's congressional, state senate, state assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts. The redrawing of districts comes after every decennial U.S. Census so that the districts 'correctly reflect the state's population,' according to the commission. With the commission created through the Voters First Act, redistricting was removed from legislators' hands. When asked to comment on lawmakers' plans to redistrict and whether they'd pursue any efforts to defend the current congressional maps, the commission said in an email to the Desert Sun that it 'has no response at this time.' Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College and a California Citizens Redistricting Commission commissioner, told the Desert Sun that among what sets the commission apart is 'the extreme transparency that we use.' Sadhwani described the ways in which maps could be drawn, whether it be a single person behind the scenes or writing code for a computer to draw lines based on a set of criteria. 'We collected nearly 40,000 pieces of public testimony from across the state in which people called in to share with us where their community lies, what ties their communities together and the rationale for why their community ought to be in a district together,' Sadhwani said, explaining that is the basis of their line drawing. But whether a successful mid-decade redistricting sets up a future in which the commission could be weakened by lawmakers— or even more drastically, dismantled — Sadhwani said: 'I think that would come down to how the ballot measure is written. My understanding is what Gov. Newsom has been proposing is that this would be a one-time immediate action and would keep the commission process for 2031.' Sadhwani added, 'If we can take the governor at his word, then it would not diminish the power of the commission in general; it would just be a one-time stepping out of the process.' When would we vote on redistricting in California? Special election may be called Newsom said on Aug. 4 that the goal is to get this proposal on the Nov. 4 ballot, which coincides with other municipal elections. 'Counties have 30 days after Election Day to certify their election results,' the California Secretary of State's Office press team said in an email to the Desert Sun. 'The Secretary of State will certify the official Statement of Vote 38 days after the election.' By the end of this year, Californians will generally know whether the 2026 midterms will be shaped by new maps or not. But in the weeks leading up to a possible special election, county officials will be obtaining places for voting to occur, as well as to count the votes, said Jim Patrick, spokesperson for the California Secretary of State, in an email. 'They'll hire and train staff to work before, during, and after the election,' Patrick said. 'And they'll make sure they have the materials (primarily envelopes and ballots) they need to run an election.' Shaun Bowler, a professor of political science at UC Riverside, said in an email to the Desert Sun that 'pretty much any map of seats' is subject to legal challenge. 'This will be no different,' he said. This effort is unusual because it's a response to events happening in other states, Bowler said. Rather than it being a step to counter GOP efforts in California, it's an attempt to offset what lawmakers are trying in Texas, the UC Riverside professor said. He shared what he thought were wider implications for Congress. Should redistricting in Texas ultimately help keep Republican control of Congress, then anything they pass is 'going to be suspect and open to criticism and complaint' because it wouldn't reflect the will of voters, Bowler said. When asked whether leaders have a backup plan should people vote against this effort, Newsom said voters will approve it. 'I think the voters understand what's at stake,' he said. Paris Barraza is a trending reporter covering California news at The Desert Sun. Reach her at pbarraza@ This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: California redistricting: Here's Newsom's plan and what happens next Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Social Security 2026 cost-of-living adjustment predicted to increase 2.7%
Social Security beneficiaries could see a 2.7% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) next year, which is slightly more than the 2.5% boost U.S. retirees received this year. The new estimate comes from the Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group, which posted its prediction on its website on Tuesday after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest inflation figures. AARP also released 2026 COLA estimates from experts, such as Mike Lynch, managing director of applied insights at Hartford Funds, who predicted a more modest adjustment in the "low to mid" 2% range, up to 2.7%. The Social Security Administration makes a cost-of-living adjustment each year to ensure benefits payments for U.S. seniors keep pace with inflation. The yearly adjustment, which the agency is scheduled to announce in October, would go into effect in January 2026. The SSA did not immediately respond to CBS MoneyWatch's request for comment. Each fall, the agency uses inflation data from July, August and September to determine the COLA for the next year. The consumer price index (CPI), a basket of goods and services typically bought by consumers that tracks the change in prices on everyday items over time, showed that the inflation rate in July held steady at 2.7% on an annual basis, the same as it was in June. So far, the inflation rate has remained below 3% since the start of 2025. However, experts predict it could inch up later in the year as tariffs put more pressure on consumer prices. Alan Detmeister, an economist at UBS, told CBS MoneyWatch that he estimates headline CPI will rise to 3.7% and core CPI will rise to 3.8% by the second quarter of 2026. Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist at New York City's New School, believes inflation will likely rise and is concerned that a moderate cost-of-living adjustment "probably won't be enough to cover the inflation rates that we're headed into," AARP reported. According the the AARP, the 2.5% COLA adjustment introduced this year boosted the average Social Security retiree's payment by about $49 a month. The average monthly Social Security check for all beneficiaries was $1,861 in June 2025 and $2,005 for retired workers, according to the Senior Citizens League. In addition to the COLA, some senior citizens will also benefit from a provision included in President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" which provides a temporary tax deduction of up to $6,000 for Americans aged 65 and older. President Trump says meeting with Russia's Putin is not to broker peace deal in Ukraine Could Tropical Storm Erin become the first Atlantic hurricane of 2025? Trump claims "land swapping" between Russia, Ukraine will happen Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Severe consequences': Trump warns Putin ahead of Alaska summit
President Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that Russia would face 'very severe consequences' if he determines during Friday's summit with Vladimir Putin that the Russian leader is still not serious about ending the war with Ukraine. Trump, who did not specify what those consequences might be, has been reluctant to increase economic sanctions or tariffs on Russia despite his mounting frustration with Putin's intensifying attacks on Ukrainian cities, civilians and indifference to peace talks. Lowering expectations that the sit-down with Putin in Alaska would yield a breakthrough, Trump said that he's hopeful this initial meeting could lead to another that includes Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and, potentially, Trump. 'First, I'll find out where we are,' Trump said. 'If the first [meeting] goes okay, we'll have a quick second one. I would like to do it almost immediately.' But, the president cautioned, he won't pursue a trilateral meeting if he doesn't think Putin is acting in good faith. 'There may be no second meeting because if I feel that it's not appropriate to have it because I didn't get the answers that we have to have, then we are not going to have a second meeting,' Trump said. Trump's comments came during an appearance at the Kennedy Center and shortly after an hour-long call with European leaders, including Zelenskyy, in preparation for Friday's summit. Trump described the call as 'very good,' and several European leaders were quick to issue statements about the call Wednesday morning to underscore their alignment. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that Trump 'largely shares' Europe's position on peace talks, and French President Emmanuel Macron stated that Trump is indeed pushing for a ceasefire, a top priority for Zelenskyy and NATO. Putin's stubborn refusal to entertain Trump's diplomatic entreaties so far has pushed the president into closer alignment with NATO allies and even Zelenskyy, who he dressed down in the Oval Office less than six months ago. Friday's sit-down with Putin, who many analysts believe is likely to try to repair his personal relationship with Trump in a private meeting while convincing him that Ukraine shares the blame for the prolonged conflict, will put the president's shifting convictions to a serious test. Even as he sought to put the onus on Putin to demonstrate new seriousness about ending the war, Trump downplayed expectations about his own ability to persuade the Russian president to do so. When asked whether he could convince Putin to 'stop targeting civilians in Ukraine,' he demurred. 'I guess the answer to that is probably no,' Trump said.
